Originally posted by sc2099
C. Why should someone need sympathy for a decision that they made of their own volition?

They shouldn't. However, the left bases their whole game on this sort of sympathy politics.

I am lost with this Logic. At what age is a girl CAPABLE of making this DECISION? Is the premise that as soon as a teenage girl is able to concieve
she is qualified to make the DECISION to have a child? 12 years old? 13 years old? 14?

If they are capable of firing a firearm...is the child qualified to do so? I see plenty of little boys playing with plastic guns, they must be
ready.
Drive a car? Drink? Fill out a ballot?

AT WHAT AGE do you think these girls are making rational decisions to raise a family?

Please explain the logic to me and how they are making rational "decisions" of their "own volition".

So I suppose it's okay for older men to prey on teenage girls since they are capable of making these decisions.

We have laws to protect people from this.

BTW ... Isn't the boy who got Sarah Palin's daughter pregnant 19? The daughter was 16 at the time? Why hasn't he been charged?

Well, Bristol Palin is 17. I believe most 17 year olds are capable of making the decision of whether or not they are prepared to have children. It's
not a hard decision. I belive it is glaringly obvious to even younger teens that they are not ready to be parents. This being the case, it should also
be obvious that they are not ready to have sex.

Bristol wasn't raped. Therefore she made the decision to have sex (and possibly a child) of her own volition. As she seems to be mentally sound, how
was this choice not made rationally? How exactly was she coerced into having sex when she wasn't ready?

The point is that she made a decision by herself and it turned out to be the wrong one.

You seem to be saying that Bristol wasn't capable of making a rational decision of whether or not she should have sex. So I can only gather that you
think she should not have been having sex at all, and so she deserves sympathy for doing something she knew she shouldn't have. What exactly are you
saying here?

Originally posted by sc2099
When a person is 15-16-17 years old they are old enough to understand where babies come from and that if they engage in sex they might find themselves
with one.

Understanding where babies come from is not an adequate pre-requisition for making the decision to become a parent.

Children understand all kinds of things... like how to fire a gun and what guns do...it doesn't mean they are qualified to make those decisions.

What about girls that are younger than 15? Do you not think this program has helped girls younger than 15?

I am glad that Sarah Palin is supporting her daughter and the pregnancy, i just wish that she had opted to agree with the State Legislature in how to
support other unplanned pregnancies for girls that don't have a support network.

Mmmm...nope. Not buying it. You can't have it both ways. Either spend a little extra cash to educate kids about contraceptives or you start shelling
out because we took that risk on the glands of an adolescent. If we're going to make a mistake like that we should own it. We know we can help the
problem but you insist on not doing everything we can to solve it.

Until then, we will have to continue paying to help young single moms because not only is it the right thing to do, but nobody likes orphans and dead
babies.

Originally posted by sc2099
When a person is 15-16-17 years old they are old enough to understand where babies come from and that if they engage in sex they might find themselves
with one.

Understanding where babies come from is not an adequate pre-requisition for making the decision to become a parent.

Children understand all kinds of things... like how to fire a gun and what guns do...it doesn't mean they are qualified to make those decisions.

What about girls that are younger than 15? Do you not think this program has helped girls younger than 15?

I already addressed this in my previous post, but I will reiterate. If a person can look at their life and see "I live in my parents' home. I work
for minimum wage part time at the mall. I am not a high school graduate yet. I have no career training. I still ask my parents for spending money. I
am not prepared to have a child." then it is obvious to them that they are unfit to become parents at that point in time. A person doesn't have to
be 25, 21, or 18 to make such an observation. A 12 yaer old can see that they are painfully unable to care for a child, and should thus not have
sex.

It's the same with any life decision. If a person is unable to take the proper responsibility that comes with a weapon, they should not own one.
Erase weapon and put car, alcohol, tobacco, or sex. If a person is not responsible enough to take care of a baby then clearly they are not responsible
enough for sex.

This program has helped some girls I'm sure. But the issue isn't whether or not it's helped girls; it's whether or not the state should pay for
it. This program does not need to be subsidized by taxpayers. If girls don't even have a family who takes care of them, and they can't take care of
themselves, they sure as hell should not be having sex and possibly begetting a child. There is no way the state should be sponsoring this kind of bad
behavior and poor decision making.

Mmmm...nope. Not buying it. You can't have it both ways. Either spend a little extra cash to educate kids about contraceptives or you start shelling
out because we took that risk on the glands of an adolescent. If we're going to make a mistake like that we should own it. We know we can help the
problem but you insist on not doing everything we can to solve it.

Until then, we will have to continue paying to help young single moms because not only is it the right thing to do, but nobody likes orphans and dead
babies.

You don't seem to understand. I am all for education and personal responsibility. What I am not for is school attempting to teach this to kids when
they can't even properly teach kids math or reading. The only thing kids take away from poorly managed sex-ed classes is that if they use a condom
they won't get pregnant or diseases, which is hardly true. Schools just can't be trusted not to make the problem worse.

I'm not exactly sure what 'both ways' you think I am trying to have. It's not contradictory that teens who aren't responsible enough to have kids
shouldn't be taught by schools that aren't responsible enough to teach people to write decently that if you put a condom on everything will be ok.
Even without this sort of 'education' in school, it should still be obvious that they aren't ready to be parents.

But sex ed isn't what this thread is about. It's about taxpayers not having to pay for the bad decisions of others, even if they are

Originally posted by sc2099
[
It's the same with any life decision. If a person is unable to take the proper responsibility that comes with a weapon, they should not own one.
Erase weapon and put car, alcohol, tobacco, or sex. If a person is not responsible enough to take care of a baby then clearly they are not responsible
enough for sex.

The difference is that as far as a weapon, car, alchohol, and tobacco...young teenagers are not by default equiped with these items and their use is
appropriately restricted to the best of our ability.

My point is that you made a case for ....if they are able to have sex, then they should own that decision and consequences without assitance from the
state. I think that there are very young girls who are not capable of making rational decisions yet concerning parenthood, but are capable of getting
pregnant and that if they don't have the support network or finances that Palin's daughter has then they deserve sympathy and support from their
fellow citizens.

These programs support girls as young as 12 who have gotten pregnant and are in impovershed circumstances. YES they deserve sympathy.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I think that there are very young girls who are not capable of making rational decisions yet concerning parenthood, but are capable of getting
pregnant and that if they don't have the support network or finances that Palin's daughter has then they deserve sympathy and support from their
fellow citizens.

These programs support girls as young as 12 who have gotten pregnant and are in impovershed circumstances. YES they deserve sympathy.

All you do by providing them support is create a cycle of poverty, and foster learned helplessness. They must be made to learn from their
mistakes, not patted on the back and rewarded for their irresponsibility. Surely they knew their parents would not help them before they decided to
play adults and have sex out of wedlock..

What happened to all the wonderful Sex Education they have in schools nowadays? Why is the pregnancy rate increasing rather than going down?

Maybe all these unwed mothers are starting to see having babies as a way to be independent from their families , and at the same time not have to work
like responsible parents do..:@@

Let me clarify then. By Slashed I mean used a line item veto (ala bush) to overrule and reduce the amount of support that the Alaskan State
Legislature felt should be given to teenage mothers.

What is your point?

Chief Executives and the State Legislature disagree on how much to spend on programs all the time. They go back and forth and work things out. Gov.
Palin felt that a 3-fold increase in spending was a bit much so she scaled it back.

At least Gov. Palin has experience making tough budget decisions. Candidates with only legislative experience are prone to promise money to every
political group they can identify to win votes.

In 2006 the facility received $1,194,778 dollars from the government.
In 2007 the state legislature submitted a budget that allocated $5 million.
Gov. Palin vetoed this line item, and the amount given to the organization was $3.9 million.

The organization received an increase of about $2.8 million dollars in state funds. Their funding wasn't slashed, it was INCREASED.

To twist this information to the point where you conclude "Palin Does Not Support Teenage Moms" is more of a reflection of your hatred and
misguided reasoning than Gov. Palin's feelings towards teenage moms.

In 2006 the facility received $1,194,778 dollars from the government.
In 2007 the state legislature submitted a budget that allocated $5 million.
Gov. Palin vetoed this line item, and the amount given to the organization was $3.9 million.

The organization received an increase of about $2.8 million dollars in state funds. Their funding wasn't slashed, it was INCREASED.

To twist this information to the point where you conclude "Palin Does Not Support Teenage Moms" is more of a reflection of your hatred and
misguided reasoning than Gov. Palin's feelings towards teenage moms.

No hatred Jam...

The alaskan state legislature voted to allocate 5 Million dollars and Palin chose to line item veto it and REDUCED it by over a million dollars.

Why? No one has answered that yet?

We can say she was being conservative, but at the same time she was recieving MILLIONS of dollars in earmarks for her tiny town.

Ironic ....McCain has made opposition to pork-barrel spending a central theme of his 2008 campaign. "Earmarking deprives federal agencies of scarce
resources, at the whim of individual members of Congress," McCain has said.

Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after
she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark. www.latimes.com...

As far as "twisting words" its hard to take that seriously from someone that started a thread claiming Obama sees his grandchildren as
"punishment".

Originally posted by maybereal11
As far as "twisting words" its hard to take that seriously from someone that started a thread claiming Obama sees his grandchildren as
"punishment".

Ok, please correct me. What were the exact words Obama said?

I'll give you a head start. Let's play fill in the blank:

"look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a
mistake, I don't want them ___________________ with a baby," Obama said.

Originally posted by Loki
You can't have it both ways…we took that risk on the glands of an adolescent. If we're going to make a mistake like that we should own it. We know
we can help the problem but you insist on not doing everything we can to solve it.

This is classical liberal collective guilt thinking. Who’s the “we” that made a mistake? I’m sorry that people make mistakes but I don’t
feel that somehow I should be held culpable just because I happen to live in the same continent. Why this constant attempt to spread guilt all over as
if it had no specific origin? Guess what…sometime people make mistakes and those mistakes lead to very devastating results! Why should the rest of
society be beholden to people that either can’t or won’t behave responsibly?

If I made a ‘mistake’ by betting my life savings on the roulette wheel and lost, would that be everyone’s mistake? Should society then be forced
to support me? Would you be happy to "own" that?

Originally posted by maybereal11
Sarah Palin supports teenage mothers who have unplanned pregnancies...just as long as they are HER children.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

charity should begin at home, then if it fails....only then should the search for help be extended outward.....
so, ya she supports HER DAUGHTER, so where's the families of all these other girls out there? are they supporting theirs?

by the way.....ya know, cheney's daughter's gay, didn't hear this much crap about her, why is that? is it that because cheney's the father
instead of the mother, that well, he shouldn't be held responsible for every foul up that has occured in the child's life, only the mother or what?
come on, what gives here? bush's daughters were drinking themselves to death....and well, if I ctook the time, I more than likely think of alot
more wayward presidential children. but, one little girl gets pregnant, and the crap hits the fan, because, well, it's her mom running for office,
not her dad?

In 2006 the facility received $1,194,778 dollars from the government.
In 2007 the state legislature submitted a budget that allocated $5 million.
Gov. Palin vetoed this line item, and the amount given to the organization was $3.9 million.

The organization received an increase of about $2.8 million dollars in state funds. Their funding wasn't slashed, it was INCREASED.

To twist this information to the point where you conclude "Palin Does Not Support Teenage Moms" is more of a reflection of your hatred and
misguided reasoning than Gov. Palin's feelings towards teenage moms.

It is quite obvious that the Alaskan problem with childhood pregnancy was sufficient for the legislature to agree to this amount. By adhering to an
abstinence policy, the problem just becomes worse and worse. I think it is appalling for Palin to cut what a large group of her peers decided what was
best.I would view as a personal decision by Palin rather than a move to support her constuients.

We are basically animals. Animals do not wait until they are a certian age to try to reproduce. When the hormones hit and the heat comes they know one
thing and that is the extreme urge to reproduce. If a child isn't taught the consequences then it is only the parents and the education system that
is to blame. You cannot blame the child. So basically Sarah Palin is to blame for not instilling this in her daughter. Maybe she was too busy being a
politician to pay her daughter the proper attention?

As to young unmarried mothers taking care of themselves, for most without the family means, it is very improbable that they will be able to care for
their children in a way that our society seems fit. Children are expensive and most 17 year olds are unable to locate a job which would provide
sufficient earnings. Would those of you agruing against aid for these cases, prefer to see the baby and mopther freze to death in the Alaskan winter?
I have found that most folks with these views consider themselves "christians". I find that really sad that the supposedly most moral amongst us,
are the ones who hold the most convictions that go against what Jesus taught.

Flame me all you want with the attack on christians, I am not one(was raised one), but I definitely believe in the principles that were passed down by
Jesus. I also feel that most Christians do not share these basic principles except for when it fits their wants. Thus I look at most religous as
extreme hypocrites and would never cast my vote in that direction.

If you were in a situation where you had a choice to stand-by your daughter or not, what would YOU do? The answer is obvious. She does it because she
HAS to. Palin is only supporting her daughter because THAT IS HER DAUGHTER. She most likely doesn't support teenage pregnancies but when faced with a
situation like this, what do you think any parent would do? What's Palin going to do about her daughter's pregnancy? Talk her to death? Not many
would FORCE their daughter to have an abortion. Having the baby IS her punishment, she'll have to live with it for the rest of her life.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have more sensible articles on ATS to read.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.